


"We had no choice": The Dangerous Lie in "Axanar: The Four Years War"

by Limulus



Series: The Axanar Critiques [6]
Category: Star Trek
Genre: Axanar, Essays
Language: English
Status: Completed
Published: 2020-11-30
Updated: 2020-11-30
Packaged: 2021-03-10 06:01:35
Rating: Teen And Up Audiences
Warnings: Creator Chose Not To Use Archive Warnings
Chapters: 1
Publisher: archiveofourown.org
Story URL: https://archiveofourown.org/works/27678461
Author URL: https://archiveofourown.org/users/Limulus/pseuds/Limulus
Summary: In a companion piece to "'Prelude to Axanar': History or Propaganda?", I explore the ways in which the script for "Axanar: The Four Years War" expands on the themes "Prelude to Axanar" introduced and the central moral failing that arises from them: that the Federation had no choice.  I further examine how a lack of choice leads to an abdication of responsibility and a failure to learn from the past.
Series: The Axanar Critiques [6]
Series URL: https://archiveofourown.org/series/1383877





	"We had no choice": The Dangerous Lie in "Axanar: The Four Years War"

Three years ago, [I reviewed](https://archiveofourown.org/works/19110433/chapters/45409945) the _Axanar_ feature film script at the center of _Paramount Pictures Corp. vs. Axanar Productions, Inc_. Today, I am reviewing an [adaptation](https://us20.campaign-archive.com/?u=2d0411ecf0787fd9d4dc8dc5c&id=df4382c24c) of the _Axanar_ feature film script that is part of a new lawsuit between Axanar producer Alec Peters and former Axanar director Paul Jenkins. Following the _Axanar_ saga is like watching _Battlestar Galactica_ : All of this has happened before, and all of this will happen again.

While _Axanar: The Four Years War_ follows the basic plot of the _Axanar_ feature film script, it is presented as parts IV and V in a Federation documentary series begun _in medias res_ with _Prelude to Axanar_. As such, it uses _Prelude_ ’s documentary style; it invites back Trek’s favorite fascist, John Gill, as its omniscient narrator; and it features characters such as Alec Peter’s Garth of Izar, Kate Vernon’s Sonya Alexander, J.G. Hertzler’s Sam Travis, Gary Graham’s Soval, and the late Richard Hatch’s Kharn. It was even promoted along the same lines as _Prelude_ , with [readers calling the story](https://axanar.com/axanar-script-locked/) “the very purest essence of Star Trek” and “true to Gene’s utopian vision for humanity.”

Somehow I doubt Gene Roddenberry would have been pleased to see the _Enterprise_ reduced to a weapon of war—the Constitution Class described by _The Four Years War_ ’s John Gill as “the next generation of Starfleet heavy cruiser, meant to equal the Klingon D-7” (p. 12)—when he quite famously [complained](https://www.indiewire.com/2016/09/star-trek-50th-anniversary-gene-roddenberry-wrath-of-khan-letter-project-366-1201724589/) to Harve Bennett that Starfleet was far too militarized in _Wrath of Khan_ , saying,

> The treatment of Starfleet as primarily a military organization is a very troubling format error. STAR TREK would not have been beloved of Viet Nam soldiers and college students had it simply been a show about “space age battlecruisers.” BATTLESTAR GALACTICA was about those things – and most of our audience considered it a kiddie-time joke. Starfleet is identified both in format and writing guides as a quasi-military force whose military job is secondary to exploration, discovery, assistance to space scientists…

A detail such as whether a ship was built for exploration and repurposed for war or built for war and repurposed for exploration might seem critical only to the pickiest fans, but such details can point to a story’s perspective and theme. It is here that the thematic limitations imposed on _Axanar: The Four Years War_ by its predecessors reach one terrifying conclusion: the Federation has gone through hell but takes no responsibility and learns no lesson. This conclusion leaves the reader not with the hope of better tomorrow but with the troubling sense that this thing that has happened before _will_ inevitably happen again.

**Revisiting the Past**

Although _Axanar: The Four Years War_ is presented as a continuation of the story begun in _Prelude to Axanar_ , it may be more appropriate to call it a retcon. For example, the two stories don’t quite agree on where the value of species-segregation lies. _Prelude_ argues that the value lies in unpredictability of each species acting nearly independently as illustrated in an exchange between Garth, Sonya Alexander, and Kharn.

Garth opens the discussion, saying,

> “At the time, Starfleet crews preferred to fight among their own kind.”

Alexander develops the argument,

> “Crews might be Andorian, or Tellarite, or Vulcan, or Human. Each of which had their own strategy and tactics.

Kharn delivers the result,

> “One new knew who you were fighting. And knowing ones enemies is the first rule of war” ([ _Prelude to Axanar_](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1W1_8IV8uhA), 13:51-14:08) _._

_The Four Years War_ , on the other hand, argues that the value lies in a sharing of information, with Sonya Alexander saying, “It doesn’t matter that crews are generally segregated by member world because we all train together. We learn each other’s fighting styles and tactics. I think that’s what makes us stronger” (p. 5).

A greater contradiction, however, lies in the timeline. _Prelude_ implies that the impetus behind Garth’s plan for a decisive battle at Axanar is to prevent the new Klingon super-battlecruiser, the D-7, from entering the war with Garth saying, “If the Klingons launched them [the D-7] first, we would have been outmatched and outgunned, again ”( _Prelude_ , 15:58). In response, Ramirez asks his captains for their plans ( _Prelude_ , 16:13-16:20), of which he selects Garth’s, saying, “So I signed off on the plan. To end the conflict with one final battle. To end it at Axanar” (Prelude, 18:11-18:20). The film then ends with the entry of the D-7 into the war, suggesting that as fast as Starfleet moved, it wasn’t fast enough.

 _The Four Years War_ flips this timeline, making the _arrival_ of the D-7 into the war the impetus for the Axanar battle plan. It begins with a D-7 destroying multiple Starfleet ships in “the first major engagement since its introduction” (p. 1) before seguing into the Starfleet officers’ reactions to this change of the _status quo_ (pp. 2-4). This section ends with omniscient narrator John Gill saying, “With nowhere else to turn, the new Starfleet Commander in Chief and a decorated starship Captain are about to undertake the boldest military plan in the history of the Federation: A plan to lure the Klingons into one final battle that will end the four years war. The battle at Axanar” (p. 4).

Not only is the timeline flipped, Ramirez is no longer present, Tony Todd having [left the project](http://axamonitor.com/doku.php?id=tony_todd) in 2015. The result is that the Admiral Ramirez replacement character, Admiral Threl, is now the one to sign off on Garth’s plan in a direct contradiction of the story _Prelude_ established (p. 12).

Quite simply, these two documentaries cannot exist in the same Federation timeline due to their discontinuity, which I suspect represents a basic misunderstanding of the two timelines involved: the timeline of the original event and the timeline of the documentary’s production. If these are retrospective documentaries, you don’t need to explain why Ramirez wasn’t present for Axanar. You need to explain why Ramirez wasn’t present for the documentary that happened well afterwards, particularly when he was in its predecessor.

However, despite their differences, _Prelude to Axanar_ and _Axanar: The Four Years War_ are still the same basic type of documentary, with _The Four Years War_ continuing and expanding upon the themes I identify in my essay [“ _Prelude to Axanar_ : History or Propaganda?”](https://archiveofourown.org/works/19108561), a story of Good and Evil featuring Garth as one of Carlyle’s Great Men.

**An Extraordinary Time, A Great Man**

As in _Prelude_ , the basic conflict of _Four Years War_ is a “good vs. evil” story, specifically a “David and Goliath” story, in which the weaker, yet virtuous, Federation defeats the stronger, less-virtuous Klingon Empire. While one might argue that virtue is culturally relative, and that is true, this is a story written by 21st century Western writers for a 21st century Western audience. It very clear that the viewers are meant to sympathize with the Federation and that the Federation reflects the equivalent cultural values, such as innate peacefulness, teamwork, and self-sacrifice, while the Klingon Empire does not.

Frequently these virtues are raised in direct comparison, such as in an exchange between the Starfleet captains early in the story in which one suggests that what turned Starfleet “from a small exploratory force to a cohesive fighting force” was the unique relationship between the captains. This concept is further expanded by J.G. Hertzler’s Sam Travis who says, “[The Klingons] fight for personal honor or the honor of the Empire. Starfleet captains fight for each other” (p. 5). This sentiment is then illustrated in the final battle when Starfleet captains either sacrifice their ships or take such a risk in order to save their comrades (pp. 25-26).

In addition to the contrast between the Federation and Klingon Empire in values, as characterized by their respective officers corps, the two powers are contrasted through their attitudes towards war, with the Federation being innately peaceful. For example, the Federation’s expansion is characterized by Gary Graham’s Soval as “enlightened and peaceful,” but having a “predictable effect” on the Klingon Empire, the effect implied to be triggering a war (p. 33). (This implication is confirmed by Soval’s Klingon counterpart, Mor’o, on the same page.) The Federation’s inherently peaceful nature further appears in reference to the conclusion of the Four Years War when Mor’o says “It is not easy for a warrior to talk candidly of his defeat. Victory or defeat, we have learned to live with either of those outcomes. But the Izarian offered Kharn a third choice, a peace” (p. 30), as if the Federation is introducing an entirely new values concept to the Klingon Empire through Garth of Izar. (Although, I will note that the Klingon Empire clearly understands what a peace treaty is on page thirty-four, suggesting that they are not nearly so black-and-white as presented here.)

Perhaps it is fitting that Garth of Izar should be portrayed as a man who brought Federation virtues to the Klingon Empire because he is as he was in _Prelude_ , one of [Carlyle’s Great Men](http://history.furman.edu/benson/fywbio/carlyle_great_man.htm), or a “leader of men” who shapes culture and history according to his vision.

Garth of Izar is a military man in _Axanar: The Four Years War_ , not an explorer as he was in the Star Trek episode “Whom Gods Destroy.” He quotes the 19th century Prussian field marshal Helmuth von Moltke the Elder (p. 2); he derives his tactics at [Cirrus V](https://archiveofourown.org/works/19119223/chapters/45434653) not from having studied and cataloged hundreds of gas giants, but from his experience in the “Izarian Rangers” where the first thing he learned “in terms of combat tactics was to use the terrain” (p. 8); and he met his first officer taking a Kendo class at the Academy (p. 6). (Incidentally, the Kendo class is where we’re introduced to Garth’s only flaw. Like hundreds of fan fiction self-insert characters and Bella Swan in _Twilight_ before him, he’s “ever so slightly clumsy,” although being “very tenacious” makes up for it.)

And as a military man, Garth excels at war even to the level of the war-like Klingons.

It is his plan that is described by John Gill, the objective, omniscient narrator, as “the boldest military plan in the history of the Federation” (p. 4) and he himself as “one of the most successful commanders of the war ” (p. 6). Garth’s peers, and even the script, echo these sentiments in the following excerpt.

> TRAVIS: In the end, I think if we had to put up one Captain and crew against the best Klingon ship, the answer would be fairly unanimous.
> 
> Sonya Alexander deliberates for a moment. She wants to protest but she knows it’s true.
> 
> ALEXANDER: Yeah. Garth (p. 7).

But perhaps the strongest argument for Garth’s greatness is that the Kharn the Undying, the Klingon Empire’s greatest warrior, recognizes Garth’s superiority, saying, “I would have to admit the reason for our defeat…was Garth of Izar” (p. 30).

Kharn, played by the late Richard Hatch and introduced into this story presumably through recycled footage from the filming of _Prelude to Axanar_ , does not attribute the Federation’s victory to the cooperation of multiple species. He does not attribute the Federation’s victory to the relationships between its captains. He does not attribute the Federation’s victory to the dedication of crews fighting for something they believe in. He attributes the Federation’s victory to a single person: Garth of Izar.

On the one hand, we have a virtuous Federation that must be David to the Klingon Empire’s Goliath. On the other hand, we have Great Man who must be superlative in his being and world-changing in his actions. Together these two things create the perfect background for _The Four Years War_ ’s dangerous lie: that at every turn there was no choice but the one that was taken.

**A Dangerous Lie**

From the beginning to the end of _Axanar: The Four Years War_ , the story is driven by the refrain or implication that “there was no choice.” It is introduced in the first minutes of Part IV with the arrival of the D-7 and the Federation’s ensuing losses, and the Federation’s lack of an equally powerful warship. Gill summarizes the situation for the audience, announcing that “Federation tacticians conclude Starfleet is losing the war” and that Starfleet is “out of time, out of ships, and out of hope,” to which Garth replies, “I remember thinking we had no way out. When you’re outgunned, outmanned, and out-thought like that, **you don’t have a lot of options.** You have to start taking some risks” (p. 4). [Emphasis mine.]

Being option-less defines not only Garth’s choices moving forward, but also the choices of Federation and those of his fellow captains. It influences plot-critical decisions, such as Garth’s choice to fight a D-7 in the atmosphere of a gas giant (p. 9), and character-critical decisions, such as Robert April’s choice to leave the front and accept command of the _Enterprise_ construction project (p.6). It’s strongest appearance, however, surrounds the planning and execution of the Battle at Axanar.

The battle at Cirrus V, in which the _Ares_ pulls a Starbuck by flying into the atmosphere of a gas giant, demonstrates that it is possible for a Starfleet ship to defeat a D-7; however, the general opinion of Starfleet Command is that they had to have a significant advantage of some sort in order to do so. Robert April, a highly-decorated and respected starship captain in Star Trek canon which indicates that his views in this documentary may be understood as expert, provides an evaluation of the situation and an excellent summary of the story’s central conflict: “I don’t think the Admiralty had any choice but to approve Garth’s plan: let’s lure the Klingons to Axanar. We couldn’t get the Constitution Class ships into service, and we had to end the war before any more D-7s came off the line” (p. 11).

April’s professional assessment that this was the only possible plan is further bolstered with a statement from a Vulcan character, Arev, who says, “In hindsight, the plan was logical. A war of attrition would not have favored Starfleet. And with my people ready to withdraw from the Federation, a quick, decisive victory was required” (p. 12). This statement not only acts as neutral or objective viewpoint from the perspective that Star Trek canon establishes Vulcans as an honest and rational species, but it also carries the weight of hindsight, an implication that after the war, historians, tacticians, and strategists pored over every decision and came to the inescapable conclusion that Garth’s battle plan was the only possible option.

But not only was the battle plan the product of a lack of choice, so too were the decisions characters made during the battle itself. Although the _USS Ares_ is still heavily damaged from its earlier fight with the D-7, and although it’s Garth’s ship and thus responsible for Command and Control on the battlefield, Gill assures the viewer that it “has no choice but to enter the fray” (p. 23). Although it’s a suicide maneuver, Captain Alexander has no choice but to ram a D-7 (p. 25). And although Captain Robau’s squadron is caught between two groups of Klingon ships and in need of support, Garth has no choice but to withhold it. As Gill explains, “For the task force, the situation now becomes desperate. Captain Garth knows he may well have signed Robau’s death warrant but the fate of the entire battle—and possibly the future of the Federation—rests on his shoulders” (p. 24).

What is the value of a ship or a squadron compared to a battle or the entire Federation?

The narrative impact of the characters’ choices, or lack thereof, reaches its zenith at the climax of the battle: thanks to Garth’s brilliant flash of insight and willingness to charge a Klingon ship head-on, the _USS Ares_ is able to determine the D-7 shield frequencies, allowing the Starfleet crew to transport a torpedo onto each Klingon bridge. Commander Kenji Tanaka, Garth’s first officer and a character who I am really glad survives this iteration of the Axanar story because [Version 11 of the script did him dirty](https://archiveofourown.org/works/19119223/chapters/45435343), describes what happens next: “We had no choice but to detonate the torpedo on the other D-7 so Kharn knew we were serious. We obliterated its entire command section” (p. 29).

They had no choice.

Starfleet had no choice but to pin all of their hopes on a single massive battle. Garth had no choice but to devise a risky plan that would sacrifice many ships and lives, even though he himself disliked it and hoped that Admiral Threl would reject it (p. 12). And, at the end of it all, he had no choice but to detonate a torpedo on the bridge of a Klingon ship in order to persuade the Klingons to want peaceful coexistence with the Federation (p. 31).

**The Abdication of Responsibility**

The reason why the illusion of choicelessness is dangerous is because it allows actors to escape responsibility for their actions. It’s the excuse. It’s the hidden (or spoken) “but,” that negates the claim of responsibility the precedes it. It’s the secret salve on one’s conscience.

 _Axanar: The Four Years War_ tries to convince the reader that Garth feels responsibility for the battle’s costs, with him saying “…Axanar was my idea, and my responsibility. I made every decision – every tactical shift and calculated risk – knowing the potential cost.” His claim, however, is undercut by Captain Alexander’s line that immediately follows it: “Every Starfleet Commander feels the weight of lives hanging in the balance. But Garth had no choice…” (p. 20.).

This exchange mirrors one between Garth and Alexander earlier in the script regarding the same element of the plan—using Travis and his squadron as bait and allowing the Klingons to overwhelm them. In that conversation, Garth calls his plan “stupid,” but Alexander’s following and preceding lines work to negate Garth’s position. _She_ initially calls the plan “risky and aggressive”—words people generally associate positively with desperate battles—and she follows Garth’s self-criticism with the joke “business as usual” (p. 11).

In other words, Garth says what one might expect of him, what would be socially acceptable for him to say, while Alexander tells the audience how to interpret it. So while Garth claims responsibility for Axanar, the audience is meant to qualify that claim with “but he had no choice.”

Not content with expressing Garth’s responsibility and remorse through a line or two, the script gives the reader two-and-a-half-pages centered on Garth’s trauma. Gill reminds the reader that “…for one man—Captain Kelvar Garth of the Federation Starship _Ares_ —the responsibility of his command has exacted a heavy toll” (p. 31), before the story introduces an officer who was maimed when _Ares_ joined the battle—and who appears for only two lines in the thirty-five page script—to describe how Garth comforted his dying “buddy” before saying of Garth, “that’s my captain of my ship, the _USS Ares_ (p. 32).

What follows is curious discussion in which Garth’s peers Robau, Travis, Tanaka, and Alexander discuss Garth, and the script even gives us a shot of Garth “[sitting] alone, contemplating his decisions,” but Garth himself never comments (p. 33). Tanaka believes Garth “feels it’s his responsibility and his privilege to attend the funeral service of every single crew member he loses,” and Alexander believes that he “took responsibility for everyone who lost their life on the _Ares_ , and he comforted their families personally,” but we don’t actually know what Garth believes (pp. 32-33). And we don’t know this because when Garth takes responsibility, there is always the specter of “no choice.”

Garth’s battle plan may have been horrible, but multiple characters assure us the Federation had no choice. Garth may have claimed responsibility for taking _Ares_ into the atmosphere of a gas giant, damaging it badly, but Tanaka assures us he had no choice. Garth may have claimed responsibility for using Travis and his squadron as bait, but Alexander assures us that he had no choice. Garth may have claimed responsibility for leaving Robau and his squadron to be destroyed—save for the last-minute rescue by _Enterprise_ —but he had no choice. Garth may have claimed responsibility for taking the damaged _Ares_ into combat, resulting in the wounds and deaths of crewmembers, but Gill assures us he had no choice.

That Garth does not really take responsibility, that he’s saying what’s expected of him, is not only illustrated by how often he excuses his choices or others excuse them for him, but also how he reflects on the war. This documentary takes place at least a few years after the war based on Gill’s timeline for peace (p. 33). Garth has had time to consider what happened, to draw conclusions about it, and one of things he concludes is that “…the last year of the war was the worst. But it brought out the best in us, so **it was an even trade** (p. 6).” [Emphasis mine.]

The trade he refers to is lives, not just of those killed and maimed but also their families and anyone who else who cares about them. And yet, he finds it an acceptable exchange because it brought out a nebulous “best” in the survivors.

And of the plan to use Travis, Robau, and their squadrons as bait at Axanar, the plan he and Alexander excuse with cries of “no choice,” he says, “But it’s a game of chess. Sometimes, you have to sacrifice a pawn or two… (p. 17).” *****

Those pawns are people.

This is what excusing one’s actions by claiming one has no choice does: it allows you to evade responsibility even if you say the words “I am responsible.” In _Axanar: The Four Years War_ , the ultimate result is that the reader is given a picture not of a man who takes responsibility, but instead of a man who shirks it. The reader is given a picture not of a man who grieves, but instead of a man who is performing grief.

**No Lessons Learned**

When one claims one has no choice, one abdicates responsibility for the choice and its consequences. One is able to make mistakes but never be wrong. _Axanar: The Four Years War_ demonstrates the inevitable conclusion to this chain of events: that one doesn’t learn from one’s mistakes.

Both Federation representative Soval and Klingon representative Mor’o agree that it was the expansion of the Federation that brought the two powers into conflict. Nevertheless, Soval doesn’t question whether the Federation has the right to continue expanding now that it knows that doing so could begin wars with other cultures; instead he’s only interested in _how_ the Federation might expand without triggering further violence (p. 35). This is, of course, because he accepts the premise that the Federation’s expansion was “enlightened and peaceful” (p. 33).

Garth also accepts this premise, saying of his opening negotiation with Kharn at Axanar, “We never wanted to invade Klingon space. Our goal was peaceful coexistence. Victory in our minds was reaching a resolution with the Klingons. We just had to persuade them to want the same thing, and a photo torpedo on your bridge is a pretty powerful motivator” (p. 31).

At no time does he stop to consider that perhaps the Federation’s behavior isn’t peaceful or enlightened if this is how ends: claiming to want peaceful coexistence while holding a gun to the head of the other party. Instead, he can take refuge in the thought that it was the Klingons who brought themselves to this point, that they were the ones who chose to attack the peaceful Federation, and they were the ones who chose to fight at Axanar and gave him no choice in how to respond.

Because the Federation takes no responsibility for its part in the Four Years War, it does not question whether it has the right to “explore strange new worlds and seek out new civilizations.” Because it does not question its imperial mission, it is all but guaranteed that a war will happen again. At the end of the story, April says that Starfleet will repurpose the _Enterprise_ and Constitution Class for exploratory missions and that “[he wants] to see what’s out there. That’s like the last frontier (p. 35).

Garth agrees.

> “Exploration. That’s what makes us who we are. Not war. Exploration. We need to go back out there. Can you imagine? Where no one’s ever gone before” (p.35).

Except for the people already living there, of course.

**Conclusion**

In his essay for _Locus Magazine_ , [“Cold Equations and Moral Hazard,”](https://locusmag.com/2014/03/cory-doctorow-cold-equations-and-moral-hazard/) author Cory Doctorow discusses two stories that “present a blueprint for disaster,” “Cold Equations” by Tom Godwin and “Farnham’s Freehold” by Robert Heinlein.

Similarly to _Axanar: The Four Years War_ , both of these stories create situations in which the protagonist has no choice but to do morally questionable things: execute a stowaway in “Cold Equations” and ruthlessly rule a small community in “Farnham’s Freehold.” Doctorow notes, quite wisely, that what the stories present as inevitabilities were not actually such. All the authors had to do was change the initial conditions.

I imagine that Paul Jenkins and Alec Peters wanted to tell a tragic story, a story of two sides engaged in a senseless battle brought about by neither feeling like they had a choice; however, this goal was undercut by the elements introduced through _Prelude to Axanar_ , namely the Federation David versus the Klingon Goliath and Garth as a Great Man. These two things create a situation in which neither the Federation nor Garth can be truly flawed protagonists because if the Federation is flawed, if it is at even partial fault for the war, then it may not be truly virtuous—it may not be a true underdog—and if Garth is flawed, if he made mistakes, then he may not be truly great. He may not be truly the character that Kirk looked up to in “Whom Gods Destroy.” In order to resolve these fundamental problems, the writers set the condition that neither the Federation nor Garth had any choice with respect to their actions. The result of that condition is that neither could truly take responsibility for their actions and thus could not learn from them to do better in the future.

Doctorow writes that “science fiction is supposed to teach us about the future.” While his interest is specifically in how science fiction teaches us to relate to science and technology, I would suggest it can also teach us to challenge what we might originally have accepted as true and to imagine new ways of interacting with the world and each other. By drawing on a truly ancient story structure, and a 19th century approach to history, _Four Years War_ doesn’t look forward, but rather looks back. It doesn’t challenge its reader, and it doesn’t challenge itself, instead taking refuge in the argument that if our cause and ourselves are virtuous enough or the stakes high enough then it is our intentions that matter, not our impact.

And as the old saying goes, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

***** On page twenty, Garth says “there are thousands of lives at stake, and this is most definitely not a game.” After seeing him make excuses for thirty-some-odd pages, and seeing the utterly cold way he evaluates the sum of the war, the other line carries the most weight. Either way, this was a significant editorial oversight.


End file.
